ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISIONS
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010384
Parties:
| |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A bar manager | A limited company |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00013760-002 | 05/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00013760-003 | 05/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00013760-004 | 05/09/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/05/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
This case was heard with ADJ-00010415, which involved the same complainant against a different respondent limited company. The respondent in this case was represented by the same legal team as the respondent in ADJ-00010415.
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The evidence of the complainant and his cross-examination is set out in ADJ-00010415. He outlines that he was partly paid by the respondent in this case. He acknowledged that he had not written to this respondent about the ending of his employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that it was not the complainant’s employer. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note that the complainant and the directors worked together on various business ventures in the hospitality sector. The respondent in this case operates a public house in a suburb. The complainant worked as manager in a different business, a city centre bar. Even if the complainant was paid in part by this respondent, I find that this did not amount to an employment relationship. His employer was the respondent company in ADJ-00010415 and the shortfall in wages is addressed in that report. The claims pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act and the circumstances around the ending of his employment are dealt with against the other respondent. I, therefore, find that each complaint in this decision to be not well founded as this respondent was not the complainant’s employer. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA-00013760-002 I find that this complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is not well founded as the respondent was not the complainant’s employer.
CA-00013760-003 I find that this complaint pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act is not well founded as the respondent was not the complainant’s employer. CA-00013760-004 For the reasons set out above, I find that this complaint pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act is not well founded as the respondent was not the complainant’s employer. |
Dated: 15th February 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
|